Either you are a lawmaker (that's what politicians really are), or you stand with lawbreakers (which politicians, regrettably, sometimes do).

Over the past few days, the distinction between the two concepts has become more than academic. At the federal level, our politics have been paralyzed by the growing dispute between Conservatives and First Nations.

Supporters of the Conservative government -- citing a critical audit commissioned and paid for by that self-same Conservative government -- have aggressively argued that Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence is, if not a lawbreaker, perilously close to it. Supporters of Spence argue just as forcefully that the Harper government is breaking the law by not upholding the commitments it made in various treaties and legal agreements.

In Ontario, the notion of who favours the rule of law and who doesn't has become pretty important, too. Here, two reckless teacher-union leaders announced that they planned to flout a deficit-fighting law -- duly passed by Ontario's Liberals and Progressive Conservatives -- that sensibly freezes teacher wages for two years. Thousands of unionized teachers were told by their leaders to walk off the job on Friday, leaving hundreds of thousands of children and parents high and dry.

The union bosses dishonestly said the law -- Bill 115 -- was illegal, even though no court had passed judgment on it. Knowing this, they declined to call the unlawful walkout a "strike." Any strike, they knew, was illegal. So, they disingenuously called their strike a "protest."

That was BS, of course. And, accordingly, the provincial labour relations board found early Friday morning that the strike was, indeed, a strike. And illegal.

That, then, is the position of the renegade unions, on the one side, and the government and the law, on the other. But what of those who seek to replace departing Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty? (Full disclosure: I support Sandra Pupatello, who has unambiguously condemned the lawbreaking.)

The frontrunner in the leadership contest, Kathleen Wynne, appeared on CBC radio and said she didn't support the illegal job action.

"It's extremely unfortunate that the federation at this point is taking this action, I think that is a very bad idea," she said.

Then she actually said the lawbreaking leader of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) was "absolutely right."

About what?

"We need to have the conversation about what comes next," said Wynne, who, when she was still a member of McGuinty's cabinet, voted for Bill 115. "There needs to be a new process."

No, there doesn't. We have a "process" -- it's called "the law," and the law was duly and rightly passed by Wynne's own party and the Progressive Conservatives in the legislature.

The union bosses, here, are not absolutely right. They are absolutely wrong. That's what the labour relations board found, too: They're wrong.

It is wrong for the kids, who are losing out on their education. It is wrong for parents, whose taxes pay teachers' generous salaries. And it is wrong for everyone else, too, because it suggests that people should go ahead and break the law if they don't like it. Just call it a "protest," then break the law.

Some Ontario Liberal leadership candidates -- and all those who prevaricate about the law, and the law's intent -- are playing a dangerous game. In a bid to obtain the support of a couple of irresponsible union bosses, they risk being seen as legitimizing lawbreaking.

They risk being seen as indifferent to the laws they swore to uphold.

When the rule of law disappears, we are left to the caprice of despots and ideologues.

It is sad that some lawmakers have seemingly forgotten that. They need to be reminded.